Junior minister Niall Collins has been accused of breaches of the Code of Conduct for councillors and the Local Government Act in a complaint made to the State’s ethics watchdog by People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy.
Mr Murphy has called for an investigation to the alleged breaches in a letter sent to the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo) on Friday.
Mr Collins has been at the centre of controversy over his wife’s purchase of a property from Limerick County Council in 2008.
In his letter Mr Murphy claims that Mr Collins’ actions - at the time when he was still a county councillor prior to his election to the Dáil in 2007 - “undermines public trust and confidence in local government.”
Limerick County constituency candidates list: Difficult to see any result other than the return of three incumbents
‘Agent Cobalt’ fills role of Banquo’s ghost as Oireachtas amuses itself
Landlord threatens legal action over ban on forcing students to take 51-week leases
Total eclipse of the Dáil as Houdini Harris does a disappearing act on day one
In a Dáil statement on Thursday Fianna Fáil TD Mr Collins insisted that “no law was broken” in relation to his wife’s purchase of a property from Limerick County Council in 2008.
Mr Collins said that in hindsight and given the focus and “perception amongst some” it would have been better had he not participated in a local area committee meeting in January 2007 “even though it is absolutely clear that my wife did not benefit in any way” from his attendance.
The questions about Mr Collins’ involvement in the 2007 meeting that recommended the disposal of the property at Patrickswell, Co Limerick on the open market were first raised by The Ditch website.
His wife Dr Eimear O’Connor had previously approached the council about selling the land.
A full meeting of Limerick County Council took the final decision to sell in 2008, more than a year after Mr Collins ceased to be a councillor after he was elected to the Dáil.
In his statement on Thursday Mr Collins said: “It is important to state that an area committee of a local authority... does not have disposal rights in regard to the sale of council property.
“This is a reserved and statutory function of the full county council by law.”
He said a number of offers were received through an independent auctioneer over a period of at least six months and a full meeting of the council in 2008 approved the sale for €148,000 to the highest bidder, which was his wife Ms O’Connor.
Mr Collins said that at the time of the 2007 local area committee meeting “neither I nor my wife had any pecuniary or beneficial interest in that property”.
He said “no law was broken” and he “did not participate in any decision that authorised the sale of this land.”
In his letter of complaint to Sipo Mr Murphy outlines sections of the code of conduct for councillors and the Local Government Act 2001 that he believes have been breached by Mr Collins.
He writes that section 4.4 of the Code says that under the 2001 Act councillors must disclose at a meeting of the local authority or its committees “any pecuniary or other beneficial interest, (of which they have actual knowledge) they or a connected person have in” any matter to that comes before a meeting.
It also says the councillor must withdraw from the meeting after disclosure and must not vote or take part in any discussion or consideration of the matter or seek to in any other aspect influence the decision making of the Council.
Mr Murphy contends: “By participating in the decision of the meeting of the Bruff Electoral Area Committee to put the land up for sale and not declaring his interest, nor stepping aside, Niall Collins breached section 4.4 of the Code of Conduct for Councillors and Section 177 of the Local Government Act.”
Mr Murphy also argues that Ms O’Connor did have a “’pecuniary or other beneficial interest’ in the the decision on whether or not to put the land up for sale.
“This interest was the reasonable expectation that by the land going up for sale after she had expressed interest in buying it that she would be able to buy it and develop the site.
“She therefore had a reasonable expectation of a financial gain as a consequence of the decision to put the land up for sale.”
Mr Murphy also writes: “Niall Collins has never suggested that he was not aware that his wife had expressed interest in the land.”
Elsewhere in the letter Mr Murphy quotes Section 4.7 of the Code which says: “there may be other private or personal interests (not necessarily involving financial matters) which can also pose a real potential for conflict of interest or damage to public confidence in local government. "
It says: “Where such interests, of which a councillor is aware, arise in relation to a matter which comes before a meeting for consideration they should be dealt with in a transparent fashion.”
Mr Murphy writes: “It is clear that Niall Collins did not deal with this matter in a transparent fashion” by not disclosing his wife’s expression of interest in buying the land and “This undermines public trust and confidence in local government.”
Mr Murphy also claims that Mr Collins breached a duty of councillors as set out in section 168 of the Local Government Act saying: “the failure to declare such a conflict of interest is a failure to ‘maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest.’”
Meanwhile, the National Union of Journalists challenged the use of Dáil privilege by Tánaiste Micheál Martin to criticise individuals linked to The Ditch, calling it an “unwelcome and unedifying departure”.
“It is not acceptable for politicians to make criticism under Dáil privilege against named individuals,” Séamus Dooley, the union’s Irish Secretary, told delegates.
“The media operates within the constraints of extremely restrictive defamation laws.
“Politicians who wish to challenge the accuracy, efficacy or bona fides of any journalist or media organisation should do so within the same constraints and without the protection of Oireachtas privilege.”
